Re: [PATCH v7] builtin/clone.c: add --reject-shallow option
From: Junio C Hamano <hidden>
Date: 2021-03-25 22:58:10
"Li Linchao via GitGitGadget" [off-list ref] writes:
quoted hunk
@@ -1216,6 +1234,10 @@ int cmd_clone(int argc, const char **argv, const char *prefix) if (filter_options.choice) warning(_("--filter is ignored in local clones; use file:// instead.")); if (!access(mkpath("%s/shallow", path), F_OK)) { + if (reject_shallow) + die(_("source repository is shallow, reject to clone.")); + else + warning(_("source repository is shallow."));
Hmph, is it an improvement to warn() when the user does not mind cloning a shallow repository? $ git clone --depth=3 $URL clone-1 $ git clone file://$(pwd)/clone-1 clone-2 would give us clone-2 that is just as functional as clone-1 is, no? clone-1 may be missing objects that is needed far into the past, and clone-2 would lack the same set of objects as clone-1 does, but a user who is happily using clone-1 would be happy with clone-2 the same way, no?
quoted hunk
diff --git a/fetch-pack.c b/fetch-pack.c index fb04a76ca263..72b378449a07 100644 --- a/fetch-pack.c +++ b/fetch-pack.c@@ -1129,9 +1129,13 @@ static struct ref *do_fetch_pack(struct fetch_pack_args *args, if (args->deepen) setup_alternate_shallow(&shallow_lock, &alternate_shallow_file, NULL); - else if (si->nr_ours || si->nr_theirs) + else if (si->nr_ours || si->nr_theirs) { + if (args->remote_shallow) + die(_("source repository is shallow, reject to clone."));
Stopping early before calling get_pack() would significantly reduce the overhead, which is good.
+ else
+ warning(_("source repository is shallow."));The same question on the wisdom of warning here.
quoted hunk
@@ -1498,10 +1502,14 @@ static void receive_shallow_info(struct fetch_pack_args *args, * rejected (unless --update-shallow is set); do the same. */ prepare_shallow_info(si, shallows); - if (si->nr_ours || si->nr_theirs) + if (si->nr_ours || si->nr_theirs) { + if (args->remote_shallow) + die(_("source repository is shallow, reject to clone.")); + else + warning(_("source repository is shallow."));
OK, so, this is the equivalent of the above for protocol-v2? The same comments apply, then.
quoted hunk
diff --git a/t/t5606-clone-options.sh b/t/t5606-clone-options.sh index 428b0aac93fa..2863b8b28d44 100755 --- a/t/t5606-clone-options.sh +++ b/t/t5606-clone-options.sh@@ -5,6 +5,8 @@ GIT_TEST_DEFAULT_INITIAL_BRANCH_NAME=main export GIT_TEST_DEFAULT_INITIAL_BRANCH_NAME . ./test-lib.sh +. "$TEST_DIRECTORY"/lib-httpd.sh +start_httpd test_expect_success 'setup' '@@ -45,6 +47,51 @@ test_expect_success 'disallows --bare with --separate-git-dir' ' ' +test_expect_success 'fail to clone http shallow repository' '
s/fail to clone/reject cloning/, perhaps.
quoted hunk
+test_expect_success 'clone shallow repository with --no-reject-shallow' ' + rm -rf shallow-repo && + git clone --depth=1 --no-local parent shallow-repo && + git clone --no-reject-shallow --no-local shallow-repo clone-repo
OK. Also without "--no-reject-shallow" option, the command would successfully clone from the shallow-repo, I presume? The changes look more-or-less good to me, except for the "warning()" bit, which I do not think is a good idea.